Editing Consent decree (section)

===Public law===
Consent decrees have been used to remedy various social issues that deal with public and private organizations, where a large number of people are often concerned even if they may not be members of either party involved.{{sfn|Schwarzschild|1984|p=887}} Examples have included [[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]], the [[Americans with Disabilities Act]], and environmental safety provisions.

====Actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964====

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin.<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|42|2000e-2}}</ref> Most often, the remedies to workplace discrimination carried out under this Act take place in the form of consent decrees, where employers may have to provide monetary awards or introduce policies and programs that eliminate and prevent future discrimination.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/remedies.cfm |title=Remedies for Employment Discrimination |publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Ending Sex and Race Discrimination in the Workplace: Legal Interventions That Push the Envelope |last1=Hegewisch |first1=Ariane |last2=Deitch |first2=Cynthia H. |last3=Murphy |first3=Evelyn F. |publisher=Institute for Women's Policy Research |date=2011 |isbn=978-1-933161-06-8 }}</ref> These may include decrees that require the creation of new recruitment and hiring procedures to gain a more diverse pool of job applicants,<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bockman, et al. and EEOC v. Lucky Stores, Inc. |court=United States District Court for the Eastern District of California |reporter=F.R.D. |vol=108 |pinpoint=11 |date=1986 |url= https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/79884c}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |court=United States District Court for the District of Arizona |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |vol=147 |pinpoint=980 |url= https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/147/980/2408986/}}</ref> upgrading job and promotion assignment systems,<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Abdallah v. Coca-Cola Co. |court=United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |vol=133 |pinpoint=1364 |date=2001 |url= https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/133/1364/2292835/}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Dorman v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. |court=M.D. Fla. |reporter=So. 2d. |pinpoint=50–56 |date=2000 |url= https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/79931}}</ref> or offering training programs focusing on discrimination and diversity.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kosen, et al. v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. et al. |court=United States District Court for the District of Columbia |pinpoint=p. 21 |url= https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/80002}}</ref><ref>''Butler v. Home Depot'', Case Number: C 95-2182 SI; C 94-4335 SI, pp. 33–36</ref> Under the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] (EEOC) was created to be a major advocate and enforcer of the previously mentioned Title VII remedies.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ |title= The Law |publisher= U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |access-date= February 12, 2018 |archive-date= May 15, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170515003647/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ |url-status= dead }}</ref> In a landmark decision in 1973, the EEOC, [[United States Department of Labor|Department of Labor]] and [[AT&T]] compromised on a consent decree that phased out discrimination within recruiting, hiring and employment methods in regard to minorities and women.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/milestones/1973.html |title= Milestones |publisher= U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |access-date= February 12, 2018 |archive-date= July 8, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170708170213/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/milestones/1973.html |url-status= dead }}</ref> This established a precedent for other large, private U.S. companies to avoid litigation and government oversight by creating decrees in cooperation with Title VII.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Green |first=Venus |date=26 April 2012 |title=Flawed Remedies: EEOC, AT&T, and Sears Outcomes Reconsidered |journal=Black Women, Gender & Families |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=43 |issn=1944-6462 |doi=10.5406/blacwomegendfami.6.1.0043 |s2cid=144511760 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Williams |first=Benton |date=October 2008 |title=AT&T and the Private-sector Origins of Private-sector Affirmative Action |journal=Journal of Policy History |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=542–568 |doi=10.1353/jph.0.0027 |s2cid=154842854 |issn=1528-4190 }}</ref>

====Americans with Disabilities Act====

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was a civil rights law passed in 1990 that prohibits discrimination and ensures that people with disabilities have equal access to the opportunities and benefits available to the wider American population.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm |title=Introduction to the ADA |date=April 12, 2023 |publisher=Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref><ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|42|12112}}, {{UnitedStatesCode|42|12113}}, and {{UnitedStatesCode|42|12114}}</ref> Institutions that violate the requirements of the ADA enter consent decrees typically resulting in a payment from the corporation to those wronged, which may serve to discourage future discrimination, in addition to a change in policy to avoid future payouts.<ref>{{cite web |title=ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements |work=Americans with Disabilities Act |publisher=United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division |url= http://www.ada.gov/settlemt.htm |access-date=2014-04-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140721061207/http://www.ada.gov/settlemt.htm |archive-date=2014-07-21}}</ref> Examples of altered practices through the use of a decree have included restructuring building property<ref>{{cite web |title=Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Hilton Worldwide Inc. Over ADA Violations at Hilton Hotels and Major Hotel Chains Owned by Hilton |work=Justice News |date=November 9, 2010 |publisher=The United States Department of Justice |url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/November/10-crt-1268.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=United States' Opposition to Defendant United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc |url= http://www.ada.gov/archive/uamotion.pdf |publisher=United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division}}</ref> or the removal of barriers<ref>{{cite web |title=Settlement Agreement Concerning the Olympic Stadium |publisher=United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division |url= http://www.ada.gov/stadiumo.htm}}</ref> to allow for physical accessibility for all persons, providing supplemental communication tools such as [[sign language interpreter]]s<ref>{{cite web |title=Justice Department Settles Americans with Disabilities Act Lawsuit with Virginia's Inova Health System |work=Justice News |date=March 29, 2011 |publisher=The United States Department of Justice |url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-crt-392.html}}</ref> for those that are hard of hearing, and eliminating discriminatory practices against those that have a disability.<ref>{{cite web |title=The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Twenty Years of ADA Enforcement, Twenty Significant Cases |publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |url=http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm |access-date=April 21, 2014 |archive-date=April 22, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140422232130/http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

====Environmental law====

Consent decrees have been used to alter environmental policy, one example being the "Flannery Decision", or the Toxics Consent Decree, entered into by the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] and the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], an environmental advocacy group.<ref>[[wikisource:Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train/Opinion of the Court|Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train]], No. 74 Civ. 4617 (S.D.N.Y., March 1976)</ref> This decree, signed in 1976, highly restructured the way the EPA dealt with harmful substances by requiring the agency to list and regulate 65 toxic pollutants and to regulate pollutant discharges on an industry-by-industry basis (i.e., [[effluent guidelines]] regulations) rather than by singular pollutants.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Trussell |first=R. Rhodes |date=January 1, 2006 |title=Constituents of Emerging Concern: An Overview |url= https://www.environmental-expert.com/Files/5306/articles/8864/115.pdf |journal=Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation |volume=2006 |issue=12 |pages=1460–1467 |doi=10.2175/193864706783749585 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Toxic and Priority Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act |url= https://www.epa.gov/eg/toxic-and-priority-pollutants-under-clean-water-act |date=2019-04-08 |publisher=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |location=Washington, D.C.}}</ref> This decree went on to shape the regulations and administration procedures of water policy within the United States, particularly through the [[Clean Water Act]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=O'Leary |first=Rosemary |date=1990 |title=The Courts and the EPA: The Amazing "Flannery Decision" |url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254166607|journal=Natural Resources & Environment |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=18–55 |issn=0882-3812 |jstor=40923877 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Wyche |first=Bradford W. |date=1983 |title=The Regulation of Toxic Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act: EPA's Ten Year Rulemaking Nears Completion |journal=Natural Resources Lawyer |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=511–536 |issn=0028-0747 |jstor=40922727 }}</ref>